::::Thanks for checking back in Cacahuate. I need to investigate where tech is with this and then I'll let you know. [[User:JuCo|JuCo]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

{{openfeature}}

{{openfeature}}

Revision as of 01:08, 1 July 2008

It would be nice if the sysop tool of move revert (accessible from the move log) would auto-delete the pages that are currently only redirected.

If that's not clear, here's an explanation. We occasionally get vandals who use tabbed browsing or something to that effect to move large numbers of pages to nonsense or offensive page names. The simplest way for sysops to undo this is to revert the moves themselves (from the move log). But the move reverts leave the offensive/nonsense name pages as redirects to the original article. So sysops then go through each individual redirect and delete them one by one. It would save significant time and effort, if the act of reverting a move would also automatically delete the new page (the page to which the original was moved (the move which was reverted)).

I'd like to automate that last step. Can we do this? --PeterTalk 23:02, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

If it's not possible to automate, I wonder if at least another checkbox could be added... right now there's two when you're reverting a move: "move associated talk page" and "watch this page"... perhaps a third could be "delete current page after move" or something to that effect – cacahuatetalk 20:18, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Urgency

There's some urgency to this, as we're getting a round of move vandalism daily right now, which only gets caught some 60-100 pages into it each time.

To provide a sense of why this tech is necessary, the vandal tonight spent 30 minutes move-vandalizing 100 pages. It took me 25 minutes to revert all the moves and then delete the newly created redirects. That's in spite of sysop privileges + intimate knowledge of how to clean up this type of vandalism most efficiently.

The most basic element of good site architecture on a wiki is that it should take significantly more time and effort to damage the site than to repair it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. A more savvy vandal could actually do the damage in the exact same amount of time it takes a sysop to clean it up (and that's only if the sysop actually knows how to clean it up most efficiently).

In sum, this isn't as significant to the site as the high-value form-based listings editor, but it is more urgent, and I hope someone has at least noticed this request. --PeterTalk 23:20, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

I noticed this request and I'll pass it to tech. You've made a good case here, and I'll check back with you on it. JuCo 15:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)